Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPark and Recreation Advisory Commission Packet 01-07-1982Plymouth Park and Recreation Advisory Commission. Regular Meeting of January 7 1982; 7:30 p.m.: AGENDA 1. Call to order 2. Approval of Minutes 3. Visitor Presentations a, Athletic Associations b. Mary Patterson ;and Rick Busch c. Others 4. Report on Fast Council Action S. Unfinished Business a. Comprehensive Park System Plan b. Playfield Update c. Elm Creek Golf Course Update d. City Park Concept Plans a. 1981 Annual Report (Draft will; be given out at meeting.) f. 9. 6. New Business a.. New Plats b., Phone: Survey C. 7. Commission Presentation 8. StaffCnmrm:nication 9. Adjournment Minutes of the Regula` Meeting of the Park and. Recreation Advisory Commission December 8, 1981 Mage 37 Commissioners Present: Threinen, Chesebrough, Edwards Commissioners. Absent: Mice, Mullan, Dvorak, Berg Staff Present Eric Blank and Nancy Helgeson Others Present: John Worrall of Brauer G Associates, Patricia Moen, John Uban 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting began at: 7:45 p.m. with Commissioner Threinen acting as Chair in Jim Rice's absence. She did not officially call the meeting to order since there weren't enough members present for a quorum. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Chesebrough asked that the minutes of November 5 be corrected to read "Florence Larson lives near East Medicine Lake. Beach." (Speaker #13 from Item 5.) The minutes were not officially approved due to lack of a quorum. 5. VVISITOR PRESENTATIONS a. Athletic Association }representatives. No representatives were present at this meeting. b. Mary Patterson and Rick Busch.. They were not present at this meeting, but Mary had prepared an enrollment statistics report comparing figures from fall of 1980 and 1381, and it also showed enrollments for some of our upcoming winter events. cK Others. John Uban was present to hear the results of the public hearing, and he asked why the November minutes did not include the statements made by the commissioners in response to questions presented during the hearing. Director Blank responded by saying that the purpose of this meeting was to answer those questions. Patricia Moen, newly elected council member, was present as an observer. 4. REPORT ON PAST COUNCIL ACTION Director Blank announced that the Council had approved the contract hiring Brauer to do design concert; plans for three City parks (Plymouth Creek, Parker's, Lake and West Medicine Lake) and that work has already begun on West Medicine Dake park plans. S. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Comprehensive Park System Plan.. Director Blank review ed the five most often asked questions from the public hearing and the answers as provided by staff and commissioners. Q) Why was one site selected over an alternative site? A) A ranking/scoring system was used based on the various qualities a certain site possessed', and the site with the highest score was chosen in most cases. PRAC Minutes, of December 8, 1981 Page 38 a Q) What is the time line for acquisition? A) Acquisition of a particular site will be determined by the development Of residential hot;:,,ng units. Existing developed areas without a park would usually get the highest ranking.. Q) What are the methods of acquisition? A) Land can be purchased in one of four ways: outright purchase, land dedication, a combination of cash purchase and dedication, or land donation. Q) What are the funding methods? A) Funding can come fro* property taxes through the general fund', park dedication funds, state and federal grants, and bonds. Q) Will. a landowner be allowed to self, his property? A) Yes, the City cannot prevent a property owner from selling his land. Commissioners present asked if speakers from the public hearing would be sent written responses to theirquestions Director Blank said that he had spoken directly with some of those speakers over the past few weeks and that we would make the minutes from both meetings available to anyone interested In, them. Commissioner Threinen suggested that staff call the speakers and inform them that the minutes are available if they wish to come in and pick up a copy. John Worrall continued the discussion on the plan by stating that he had been meeting with Director Blank and Planner Tremere in an attempt to review those sites which received the most objections during the public hearing. He suggested that PRAC seriously consider choosing the alternative site located on Elm Creek over the Troy Land Co. site. The ranking score given this site was very high and although the acreage is somewhat less, it does have many good natural features; such as trees and the creek. The alternatives to the Pomerleau Lake site were reviewed next. Two sites for the neighborhood park were studied. Neither of them appears to be as good as the Pomerleau site. Mr. Worrall recommends no change. A playfield alternative site west of I-494 was never proposed. A site north of the Plymouth thin: Club and vast of Elm Creek was the alternate for a City- park but it did not rank as high as the Pomerl:eau. site. loch of it is in the flood plain. Mr. Worrall recommended that FRAC stay withthe Pomerleau site for all three park uses. The general consensus among the commissioners was that Pomerleau is the favorite due to its aesthetic qualities and ease of maintenance because of the three parks 'being combined. The proposed park site between Vicksburg and Hollydale Golf Course owned by Richard Dez el is located on the, northern most end of his property. This site is platted as an outlot at this time, and it is not the same piece of property which was turned down earlier by the Council. It was recommended that PRAC stay with this site as proposed. PMC Minutes of December 8, 1981 Page 39 There are still some unanswered questions regarding the property south of the West Medicine Lake park owned by Bud Korsmo. He is in the process of restoring a home there, and Director Blank informed him that PRAC would take that fact into consideration when making d decision on acquisition of this particular site. In recent conversations with Hennepin. County staff, Mr. Worrall was assured that every property owner south of County Road 47 had been notified regarding the regional trail, including Mr. Behrens who implied during the hearing that lie knew nothing about the trail crossing his property. The proposed regional trail alignment is corr4ct as shown on our plan. In spite of objections during the public hearing to a trail along Highway 101 north of County Road 6, Mr. Worrall believes it should remain in the plan as Proposed, since it is believed that people will walk along 101, particularly children going to and.from Oakwood Elementary and the pl.ayfield, whether a trail is there or not. Highway 101 is heavily traveled and a trail is warranted from a safety standpoint. Since there was no quorum, the Comprehensive Park System Plan could not be .fonally approved, but the minutes do reflect the opinions of those commissioners present. It was decided that a special meeting would be called during the week of December 1.4 for the purpose of approving the plan.so that it car still be on the Decert)er 21 Council agenda. Director Blank will be calling the commissioners when the date has been set.. b. Playfield Update. Tlie first five playfields are complete, and work on Zachary has: decreased and in some cases stopped, completely for the winter season. The contractors have indicated that the Zachary shelter and hockey rinks will be open by December 21.. c. Nez hborhood Parks Update. Work has ceased for the winter season, however, 95 0 he projects are complete. Some additional plantings will take place in,the spring. d. East Beacomate. Work continues on the bath house, but other work such as sod and plantings woi't be finished until next spring. e. Elm Creek Golf Course Update. Director Blank, Mr. Klatte and Finance Director Lloyd Ricker met recently to discuss the golf course.. Mr. Ricker is preparing a financial sheet which will be used in. making a recommendation. i'. Concept. Plans for Three City Parks. Director Blank gave the commissioners copies of materials that had been prepared by John Worrall which included a portion of the contract proposal, sketch maps of each park and a preliminary, program outline for each park. Mr. Blank asked commissioners to quickly review the program outline avid give their opinions on the activities being recommended for each site and to make additions or aeletions. The commissioners all felt that roller skating is a popular activity and should be added to Plymouth Creek park. Commissioner Threinen favored frisbee golf and mini -golf over a horse ring and V, pRAC Minutes of December 8, J.981 Page 40 speed skating, while Commissioner Edwards liked the idea of the horse ring and speed skating. Director Blank pointed out that a lot of interest was being generated in the state over speed skating and that having a rink in Plymouth might be a good idea. Commissioner Edwards asked Director Blank if any sort of formal structure for the amphitheatre had been considered and he said that there has been discussion by the Civic League about the need for a more permanent structure. the commissioners felt that all the activities listed for Parkers Lake seemed appropriate for that site. A fishing dock was recommended for West Medicine Lake Park by Commissioner Threinen and also agreed on by Commissioners Edwards and Chesebrough.. West Medicine Lake Drive will, be relocated to pull traffic away from the shoreline, and the old roadbed will probably become a trail:. There may be no need for a. bath house at this park, since the Regirnal Park will maintain one in addition to the new one being built on the east beach. Aside from these comments, the commissioners indicated that the other activities suggested for this site seemed appropriate::. 6. NEW BUSINESS a, New Plats. Director Blank stated that there were no new plats at this time. b. 1981 Annual Report. Staff will begin writing the 1981 annual report this month so that a first draft can be available for the January meeting. Commissioners: should begin worki:Yg on a goals chapter to be included in this year's report. Suggestions for additions to the report included. a tabulation of playfield use by sport, and an inventory of park land held by the City. 7. CONVISSION PRESENTATION No comments were made. 8. STAFF COMMUNICATION Director Blank reminded the commissioners that Chapter 5 of the Comprehensive Park System Plan needs to be approved so that it can be submitted along with the rest of the plan to the Council on December 21. Only Commissioner Chesebrough has sent written comments to John Worrall. Other commissioners were asked to send any written comments they have to Brauer as soon as possible. The next regularly scheduled meeting of PRAC was tentatively set for January 7 at 7:30 p.m. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting ended at 9:50 p.m. k X CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55441 TELEPHONE (612) 553-2800 MEMO DATE: January 15, 1982 TO: James G. Willis, City Manager 0k) FROM: Frank Kyles, Assistant City Mana eii SUBJECT: REVISION! OF CASH IN LIEU PARK DEDICATION FEES Fou4m TQ CITY Ail GIR' CITY CouNCll PUBLIC WORK DIREMR, FINANCE DIRECTOR PLANNING D,RLCTOR PUBLIC SAFETY DI;E;TOR ADMINISTRATIVE k"SISTANT PARK COti'Mil-3S*4 X111 ATTORNEY kaHER - SUMMARY In accordance with Council p4.,icy (attached), residential and commercial/ industrial cash in lieu park dedication fees are recommended for revision. Per unit fees for residential property would be revised from $360 to $390 and per acre fees for commercial/industrial land from 2,000 to $2,200. A resolution is attached for Counci* consideration, The City Council Park Dedication Policy provides that cash contributions may be made by residential and commercial/industrial developers ;n lieu of park land dedications. The policy provides that the City Council shall annually establish the cash contribution forresidentialandcommercial/industrial property based upon the City Assessor's periodic estimate of the average value of such undeveloped land. For the purposes of this review, the City Assessor normally concentrates on properties which have recently developed. Only properties which may be served by sewer and, water are included in his estimate. The City appraiser has estimated that the average value of undeveloped residential land in Plymouth at $7,800 per acreN which is up $600 from last year's estimate of $7,200. Cash in lieu fees for residential properties are figured on a dwelling unit basis assuming two units per acre, with a dedication of 10% of the land or land value or some combination thereof. Therefore, the new residential cash in lieu rate per unit is found by multiply- ing $7,800 times 10%, which equals $780. Dividing this figure by 2 for the number of dwelling units per acre, yields a new cash in lieu fee of $390 per dwelling unit. This is an increase of $30 per dwelling unit over the existing fee of $360. The cash in lieu contribution for commercial/industrial property is figured similarly. Last year, the City Assessor estimated the average per acre value of undeveloped commercial/industrial land in Plymouth at $20,000. This year, he estimates the average value per acre at $22,000. Since the park dedication maximum is 10%, the new per acre charge for comemercial/industrial property would be $2,200 rather than the e!: -sting 2,000 per acre. It is recommended the City Council revise the cash in lieu park dedica- tion fees as outlined in this memorandum and called for by Council policy. A resolution is attached for City Council consideration. Following approval, the staff will make the necessary revisions in the policy for distribution. FB jm. attach C"ITY OF PLYMOUTH r Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the day of 19 The following members were present; The followingmembers were absent: introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 82 - RESOLUTION REVISING CASH IN LIEU PARK DEDICATION FEES. WHEREAS in a report dated January 1.5, 1982 the City Assessor has established' a new estimate of the average value of undeveloped residential and commercial/ industrial land in the community; and WHEREAS, the City Council policy establishing guidelines for determining 17nd or cash in lieu to be dedicated for public park and playground purposes piovides that each year the Council will review the cash in lieu fees to insure that such fees. are current: and WHEREAS, a report has been submitted dated January 15, 1982 recommending that, the fees established March 16, 1981 be revised to reflect current trends in land values; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, that it should and hereby does amend the City policy adopting standards for determining land or cash in lieu to be dedicated for public park or playground purposes by revising No. 3. B., by the substitution of $390 per dwelling unit rather than $360 per dwelling; and further, that the second paragraph of No. 4 is hereby revised by the substitution of 2,200 in place of $2,000 per acre as shown on the current policy; and further, that the City Manager is directed to make the aforementioned changes in said policy for distribution to interested parties. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded byanduponvotebeingtakenthereon, the foo lowi oted in favor't ereo e o ow ng vete aga nst or abstained: Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passe an a cpte . e POLICY ADOPTING STANDARDS AID GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING THAT PORTION Or LAND BEING )LATTED, SOBDIVIDE.D OR DEVELOPED WHICH IS TO BE CONVEYED OR DEDICATED TO THE. PUBLIC FOR PARDORPLAYGROUNDPURPOSESORWITHRESPECTTOWHICHGASHISTO BE CONTRI'SUTED TO ?NE CITY IN LIEU OF SUCH CONVEYANCE OR DEDICATION., ALL AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 500.7.5 Or CHAPTER V OF' THE CITY CODE Fesolution No. 81-198 Iiarch 16, 1981 - Supersedes Res. 72-42, Jan. 17, 1972-, Res., 73 145, April 5, 1973; Res. 73-74 July 2. 1973; Res. 74-S1, Jan. 21, 1974 Res. 78-2921, May 15 '1978; Res. No. 78-308, May 22, 1978, Fes, No. 79-41.9, July 23, 1979; Res. No 79-738, Nov. 5, 1979: Res. No. 80-34, May 19, 1980 1. Purpose-. The City Council recognizes it is essertial to the health safety and welfare of the residents of Plymouth that the character and quality of theenvironmentbeconsideredtobeofmajorimportanceintheplanninganddevelop- ment, of the City. In this regard, the manner in whish land is developed and used is of high priority. The preservation of land for park, playground, and public open space purposes as it relates to the use and development of land for res. d_ 'Aal, commercial and ndustriai purposes is essential to the main- raining of a N ealthful and desirable environment for all citizens of the City. We must nod y provide these amenities for our citizens today, we must also be mindful sur future citizens. It is recognized by the City Council that the demand; for park, playground and public open space within a municipality is directly related to the density and intensit,yr of development permitted and allowed witChir any given area.. Urban type. developments mean greater numbers of people and higher demands for park playground and public open space. To disregard this principle is to ine`titably over -tax existing facilities and thus diminish the quality of the environment for a11. It is the policy of 'Plymouth that the following standards and guidelines for the dedication of land for park, playground I and ublic open space purposes or cash contributions in lieu of such dedicatio in the subdividing and developing of land within the City shall be directly related to the density and intensity of each; subdivision and development. 2. Standards for Acce tin Dedication a Land for Public Purposes. In the cditsi enation o accepL ng t e e fica`t on o andor publicpurposes the, following special provisions shall apply: A. Land proposed to be dedicated for public purposes shall meet identifiedneedscontainedintheCity's Comprehensive Park and. Trail Corridor Plans. B. To be eligible for park dedication credit, land dedicated is to be located outside of drainways, flood plains or ponding areas after the site has been developed. C. In those cases sere subdividers and developers of land provide signi- ficant amenities, such as, but not limited to, swimming pools, tennis courts, handball courts, ballfields, etc., within the development for the benefit of those residing or working therein,. and; where, in the judgement of the City Manager, such amenities significantly reduce the demands for public: recreational facilities to serve the developnen4, he may recommend to the City Council that the amount of land to be dedicated for park, playground,, and public open space (or cash contributions in lieu of such dedication) be reduced by an account not to exceed seventeen percent (17%,) of the amount caltulated above. D. Exceptions to these provisions shall be reviewed and recommended by the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission. 3. Residential Dedication Requirements,. To satisfy park dedication requirements, subdividers and dive7o-p-e—rs--o--f—r-e-s-i'-d-entiaI land shall be required to dedicate land to the City for park, playground, and public. open space, in accordance with one of the following three criteria, at the option of the City:. The required land dedication and/or payment of fees -in -lieu of land dedication shall be made at the time of final subdivision approval, except it the case of multiple residential developments where required site plan approval occurs otherthanatthetimeoffinalsubdivisionapprovalsinthatcasetherequiredlanddedicationand/tar parent of fees -in -lieu of land dedication shall be made a4 the time the site: plan is approved and building permits are issued. A. The dedication of that amount of land. required by the City for park, playground, and public open space based upon the approved density of the development in accordance with the gi.aph on attached Exhibit A. The percentage derived from Exhibit A shall be applied to the area of the site: for which density is calculated. B. A cash contribution in lieu of land dedication based upon the sun of 3 •d -4,per dwelling unit and not less than two dwelling units per acre. This sum represents: the City Assessors periodic estimate of the averagevalueofundevelopedresidentiallandintheCityofPlymouthbasedon the assumption that (1) such land develops at two dwelling units per acre and that (Z) the developer is required to dedicate ten percent of the land for park. playground, and public open space. The City Manager shall provide the Council, at its first meeting in February each year, or such other times as the Council may direct, with a report from the City Assessor indicating his estimate; of the. average value of undeveloped residentialhandinthecommunityandasurveyofresidentialfeesineffectinother comparable communities. C When determined by the City, the developer shall be required to dedicate a portion; of the area in land with the balance to be made in fees in lieu of such land dedication. In such cases the following procedures will, be used. 1) The City shall calculate the totalamount of land for park area which could be required in accordance with this policy. (Item 3.A.).. 2a- 2) From the total amount of land calculated in above, the City small subtract the actual amount of land the City needs for park, playground or public open space in the proposed development,. 3 The balance, of the park area otherwise required shall be calculated as a percentage of the total park dedication Obligation. This per- cer tage shall be multiplied by the approved project density, net area for which density is calculated and, current per dwelling unit park dedication fee to yield the total cash park dedication require- ment 4 industriallCpmmerciai Dedication Requirements,, Subdividers and developers, o co eroial an to ttstrMa an , inc u In coyFercial and 'industrial pore - tions of UD`s, shall be required at the time the site plan is approved and building permits are issued, to dedicate to the City for park, playground, and public open space purposes that amount of land equal to ten percent of the land area within the development. In those cases where the. City does not re- quire park or open space within such developments, the.. City shall require pay- ment of fees in lieu of such, land dedication in an amount equal to ten percentoftheAssessor's estimated undeveloped land value for such property zoned in the classification requested by the developer. These values shall be determined based upon the City Assessoris estimate of the average value of undeveloped commercial and industrial laid in the City. The City Manager shall provide the Council, at its first meet tic in Februayy each year, or such other times as the Council riay direct, : a report from the City Assessor indicating his estimate of the average vclue Gf undeveloped commercial and industrial land inthecommunityandasurveyofiadustrialIcon, mercial fees in effect in comparable communities. ss.ro In any event, the pari; dedication fees required, shall not exceed -,084 per acre. If the City determines that a developer shall be required to dedicate a portion of the land proposed for development for park or public. open space: purposes and such dedication does not satisfy the requirements of this policy, the balance due the City in cash shall be based upon the Assessor's estimated value of the undeveloped land proposed for development. The City may per -nit, easements to be dedicated by developers for trail corridors identified in theCity's. Trail Corri dot' Plan thereby allowing the developer to include the land, area in the determination of setbacks and building density on the site.. In such cases, park dedication credit will will not be given. 5 Required Improvements:: Developers shall be responsible for making ocertain improvements to their developments for park, p ap space purposes: A To provide finished grading and ground cover for all park* playground, trail and public open, spaces within their developments as part of their development contract or site plan approval responsibilities. g'. To complete construct and pave all trails not identified in the City'sTrailCorridorPlanconcurrentlywiththeroadsintheirdevelopments i.e., grading with site grading and paving with street or, parking lot paving). No park dedication credit will be given for connecting these trails to existing or proposed trails identified in the City's Trail Corridor 'Plan. 2b C To construct and pave all trails through and abutting their developmentsidentifiedintheCity's Trait Corridor plan. such trail improvements shall be undertaken at the same time as other public improvements are Instilled within the development, (i.e, grading with site grading and paying with street or parking 'tot paving). The City Staff may recommend' eviation from, this policy in the case of individual hardship in terms of the timing OF installation of such trail facilities. The City will credit the cost of paving trails identified in the City's Trail Corridor Flan against the development's total park dedication requirements. The amount to be credited will be established at the time the final plat or site plan is approved based upon prevailing engineering_ cost estimates for such work as determined by the City. D. if sidewalks are constructed in the street right-of-waY in lieu of trails within the development, no park dedication credit will be given. A sidewalk is defined as a public walkway constructed. within the street right-of-way. 6. This policy is to be construed as a part of and administered in conjunction with Section 500-25 of the City Code. 1 2c- i, and f Total) 10 10 4 Actual density 2): 20 't1/2 Actual density 11 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION January 13 1,982 Mr. Eric J. Blank, Director Park and Recreation. Department City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MR 55447 Dear Erica Thank you for your letter of December 31st regarding the Ferndale north natural park area. We are very apprecia- tive of the support and follo4q-up provided by your depart- ment and the entire City staff in resolving our differences with Lundgren Bros. We are pleased that the property can now be officially deeded to the City. We will remind our residentsthis Spring of the fact that this area is now City property and, not for personal use such, as gardens, play equipment, compost piles, etc. Also, we will ask those residents adjacent to areas where new plantings were made this past,fall to assist in watering, etc. to insure that these plantings take hold. Again, thank you for your assistance Sincerely, W'. A. Dittmore President WAD/mk CITY IFlMAGER MY COUNUX PUKIC WORK DIRECTOR cc Jim Willis FINANCEOIREC103 w Dave Davenport PLANHtl4 ORDIRE PUBUC SACETY DIREVOR ADMINIS RATN'Z PAM COMMISSION CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYM.OUTN BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55441 TELEPHONE (612) 359.2800 DATE: January 29 1.952 TO., PP C FROWx`iG Blank SUBJECT:Sale of 3.2 Beer FAEMO I would like you to consider the merits and problems of the sake of 3,2 beer in a park-. for this discussion, I'm propositi for your considera- tion allowing, the sale of beer by special permit at special events in two parks, Plymouth Greek Park including Fernbrook Playfield,and Zachary Pla.yfield. There is one basic reason for considering allowing the sale of beer. This is the increase ir, revenue the City can gain through the rental of part property for tournaments and special events, One of the best ways to raise funds at any special event is through the sale: of concessions. Beer sales play a barge part of any concession business, The two basic reasons for not allowing beer in a dark are one,, the conduct of people who drink and two, the clean-up of cans and bottles. I believe we can control this second problem by requiring a. $100 cash cdameige deposit that only is rafunded if the park is found in a clean manner without any property damage. We are doing a survey of other communities and will share these results with you at the meeting. This item is for discussion only at this tin I Have included it on the agenda of the Joint meeting with the City Council.: If you care to move ahead; with this, we will have it back on the %rch FRAC agenda. nh hitt, DATE TO, FIR0M: SUBJECT, ITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTHOUTH BLVD,, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55441 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 January 23, 1982 MEMO Eric Blank, 'Director of Park and Recreation; Richard J. Carlqu st,, public Safety Director Beer permits for designated parks, With reference to our ccnvers;ation this morning,. I have no objection to your proposal to allow beer, in certain parks. My main concern is and always has been, that proper signage Is used in the patrks to: advise and warn of pertinent park. ordinances. The enforcement of these ordinances fall on the shoulders of the ;':reef officers. In addition, prosecution is further hampered by being unable in some situations to substantially prove intent on the part of the suspect. It is my understanding that only two parks would be allowed to have beer permits. These parks are Plymouth Creek and Zachary Playfield. If beer is allowed to be sold by permit in these two parks_, we could not mediate disputes between persons bringing their own heer and the tweet, concession sellers. If beer is to be allowed for certain events, then. it is an all or nothing situation. RdC tw BEER IN PARKS Survey Question: "floes your comnu.- alt%*' " Issue City permits to sell beep at special events and week -end tournaments?" Bloomington - Yes, permits must be approved by the Council. Brooklyn Center - Yes permits to City} groups Only" krooklyn Park - Yes; pe•tnits to City groups and teams. Crystal - Yes; Salo by special permit. Edina - No Golden Valley w Yes; by special Council permits. Hopkins/Minnetonka - Yes; local groups only, special permit approval. ;also can drink beer in picnic area. New Elope - Yes; sale by special permit. Also can drink canned been ill parks. Maple Grove - No Nhplewood. - Yes; any groups must apply to City Clerk. Richfield -- Robbinsdale - Yes; permits to City organizations only,. POLICY OR USF OF PARS DEDICATION FUND Resolution No. 77-551 September 26, 1977 (Supersedes Res. No. 73-190* May 21, 1973) The City Manager shall recommend to the Council lfrom time to time appropriations from the "Park Dedication Fund" for the acquisition of land for park and play- ground purposes and for development of parks and playgrounds or for debt retire- ment in connection therewith. The Council also desires to establish general, guidelines for the distribution of the "Park Dedication Funds" to various types of City parks. In accordance with the foregoing, it shall be the policy of the City of Plymouth that the City Manager operate within the following guidelines in ma'%ng recom- mendations to the City Councilfor the appropriation of "Park Dedication Funds" 1) The Manager shall establish accurate financial records for transactions with the following. three categories of the: Park Dedication Fund" a. Central community park b. Comiurity parks, community playfields and trails c. Neighborhood parks 2) Appropriations from the "Park Dedication Fund" shall normally be on an annual basis, as part of the annual City budget, and shall be coordinated with the City Capital improvement Program. 3) Appropriations from the "Park Dedication Fund shall be for the acquisition and development for City parks, and over a five-year period shall be distributed as follows: a. Central community park - 50% b. Community parks, community playfiel.ds and trails -- 35% c. Neighborhood parks - 17% 4) In the acquisition and development of parks and trails, "Park Dedication Funds" will be combined with other funds which might be made available from the General Fund, private donations and Federal, State and County grants. 5) At the time that a developer's "Park Dedication Fund" contribution and credit is determined,. it shall be further determined to which account the remaining cash contribution shall be credited. g., PARKER'S LAKE PARK 8AA Project #81-63 COST SUMMARY3/3/82 Division No. Description I Removal s I.I Earthwork III utilities IV Pavement and Concrete V Structures. and Play Apparatus picnic tab, s observation deck totlot benches fishing dock paddle boat dock signage VI Irrigation VII Lighting VIII Plantings, Seed and Sod Subtotal 10% Contingency Professinnal Service Fee design and observation) Amount 58,000 1.51,600 2-0,450 1.25,725 60,500 6,000: 1,5,00.0 11.5,.2.00 559,475 55,948 615,423 41,849 GRAND TOTAL $657,272 1) land acquisition costs and street improvements not included; park development costs included only.. 2) Cost data based on Fe-bruary, 1,982 construction costs. 3 Single, package --no phasing included.. 4) Costs contingent on actual subsurface soil con- ditions. 5) Add 10% inflation per year to construction start 6) Does not include surveying and construction manage- ment. PLYROUIM CREEK PARK COST SOMMARY Division S&A Project 0,81-63 3/3/82 No. Description Amount street improvements not Removal includ,ed; park II Earthwork 780,050 III utilities 191,400 IV Pavement and Concrete 986,000 V Courts and Equipment 115,750 VI Structures and Play Apparatus 195,925 subsurface soil con- amphitheater ditions. bridge 5) Add 10% inflation floating board -walks to construction start. 6) Vita course surveying and construction manage- handicap Vita course ment. picnic tables benches signage VII Irrigation 25,000 VIII Lighting 60,000 Ix Plantings, Seed and Sod 319,500 Subtotal 2,504,000 10% Contingency 290,400 3,194,400 Professional Service Fee 176,692 design and observation) GRAND TOTAL $3,370,092 1) Land acquisition costs and street improvements not includ,ed; park development costs included only. 2) Cost data based on February, 1982 construction c o s t S. 3) Single package --no phasing included. 4) Costs contingent on actual subsurface soil con- ditions. 5) Add 10% inflation per year to construction start. 6) Does not include surveying and construction manage- ment. W WIC INE LAKE PARK COST SUMMARY 8&A Project #81-63 3/3182 visron Land acquisition No, Description I Removals IT Earthwork Ill utilities IV Pavement an1 Concrete V Courts and Equipment Vi R ructures and Play Apparatus phasing bridges. 4); floatinq boardwalk on actual r bollards picnic tables benches 51 observation decks per year fishinq dock 6) totl ots surveying signage V`il Lighting VIII Plantings, Seed and Sod' Subtotal 10;, Contingency Professional Service Fee design and observation) GRAND TOTAL Amount 2.88, 250 452,880 28,600 106,750 25,000 150,150 15,000 174,000 1,250,600 125,050 1,375,660 82,540 1,458,200 1 Land acquisition costs and street improvements not: included; park development costs included only. 2) Cost data based on February, 1982 construction costs. 3) Single package_ -no phasing included. 4); Costs contingent on actual subsurface soil con- ditions. 51 Add 10%.inflation per year to construction start. 6) Does: not include surveying and construction manage- s. ment. 4 CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55441 TELEPHONE (61) 559-2800 DATE. December 31, 1981 MEMO TO PRAC FROM; Eric Blank SUBJECT. Elm Creek Golf Course I have attached to this report three exhibits. Exhibit #1 is: a principal. and interest payment sheet projection for the years 1983 through 1992. Exhibit #2 is a profit and loss statment projection for Elm Creek Golf Course, and Exhibit #'3 is the same type of profit and loss statement for New Hope Golf Course.. This data was compiled and put together by the City Finance Director, Lloyd Rickey'. Based on Mr. Picker's,projections, you can see that in order to own and operate a golf course we would have to, out; of the general fund, subsidize the operation of the course in excess of 100,000 per year for the first ten years; The City Manager, the Finance Director and myself have mew to review these financial numbers and discuss the various options with the golf course. Our conclusion was that we are not in a financial position at this time to make a comni,tment of this magnitude. Because. Mr. Klatte was leaving for an extended vacation in Phoenix prior to the development of this January 7 meeting agenda packet, I have informed him that for the time being, it would be the City's position that we are not interested in the purchase otf the Elm Creek Golf Course. I believe that golf is a very worthwhile endeavor. I am of the belief that at this particular time we have higher priorities, an example being the further development of our neighborhood park system which would take precedence over the ownership of a golf course. Also under consideration is the fact that there are two other privately owned golf courses with which we would be in competition at this time I think that it would be appropriate later this year when. we undertake our first review of the Comprehensive Plan for updating and errors and omissions, etc., that we do discuss the, future of public golf within the City of Plymouth. nh Attachments. 0. w f of i k 4'4. Fa 7.06 6G a w 111 it 4 tt S F ff + r• F i i lF iJ a u,a .4, . , w+ ». . ...,... .• _. j t w * i < . t It f k t , - Y . "Y h 4 }i p. }. t 7g y9.,. ,e .. ,. ,:.. wk. .. .. a* t S t. / t (1 . .. _ } .. , . , , : .. 41.. ..; ,. .c. . .< try 1y K. X i +r i i ! ` 'E t..:......•S--r-- iiiY t`. + ,< 24 SI a' 1 Y " ,I i ( ter,, t tl , 't '' $'' r I f _ t ... 3• r' , .. `_ j:.... i,....-,.. ........ .Y `.",t:!['y'ti^.-yw"w, .. .. i . i Y i t • t i - t } I. I f Y< , 4 F .. }, i4 , , w M-. Yv Ott, L% .A& L' 11 i11 Y j ` ., .1 t4": 'cj t fS'` R ,• F ; F. JG` Y 4 7. i`+^ / • .I ', A4 7 l , r.....o M . ,4. .. » , .,-.. ,.. ,+_ ....»..,. 4.,». . w.. .« .. _ •. a 4 Y 1 Y! t Y , . {.i a r. .i , , i , , . Y . _. x" 4 1 -++. «: a,. ,r «,,......,..- .. ,...,. e.a ...:« , 4 zk . iY , e Y4 .. r a . . ., . tflt .. • , •._ . , s Y t t , i R i 'Y t : . . i t 6t . Ik ' 1 i it a-,.»•....•,.,.».,..,. ..,,... .,..w.w ••... ..... ,, ice. r„} }.1 !I 1 e t It t- t I i w+.,.r , . {+ ...:.waw .+a+t.+„u a•w,,,w.a.., +a,r.a.a.:,.. +.-. w....s,n„ .. a a.. : F t k Y w , i . ( 1 e . 4 , / 1 !, + . ` T i` ? x i / 1a I k It ... ..., .. ;i ! i k =i : Y 1 . f ' tt ` k F I" ' ` W i S K MINNESOTA RESEARCH ASSOCIATES 810 Thorton Street S.E. #1003 Minneapolis, IMN 55414 Hello, I'm of Minnesota Research Associates, a statewide researchfirm. Welra tel-k-i.ng771'_Ch peuplE! in Pl r -o ath about Problems facing ins all. A. Are you registered to vote in Plymouth? 1. Approxirately hn. ton, have ycu liv a in RIy oath Yes (CONTINUE WITH IN.TER'1IE61) No (THANK b TE RMI1NATE) ESS T0,N CMC FEAR. l 1 r vErl'.Ci c 3 -S . . . 6 - 10 YEAPS. _ a OVER TEN YEARS. . . . . . . , 5 2. As things now stand, hot,: Lona in t.i,e LESS THAN ONE YEAR. 1futuredoyouexpecttolive-in olynouth? 1 - 2 YEARS Z 3 - 5 YEARS . 3 6 - 10 YEARS.. . . < 4 OVER TEN YEARS. 5 3. Could you ~leasetell me how man ch of the 0014 1 Naw - live in your house old. Let's startoldestto youngest. age groups First, senior citizens Adults 1- cql ,- iso y' z ,0 Senior high ago El e, tentar r sc=ioc1 Pre-schooler _ / /] 3 Z ' 4 fv 4. Now would you rate the quality of life in EXCELLENTPlymouth --excellent, good, only fair, or GOOD. o . . . . 2poor? ONLY FAIR . . . . , , , , , 3 POOR . . . 4 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 5 e 5. Over the next five years, do you expect DECLINE 1 t1 the quality of life in -Plymouth to decline, ABOUT THE SAME. 2 Wremainaboutthesame, or improve? IMPROVE . 3 N DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 4 S 6. What do you like most about living in Plymouth? 7. And, what do you like least about living in Plymouth? P*:.YMOUTN ISSUES STUDY PAGE TWO 8.. flow much pride do you take in the City of Plymouth as a place to liv?-aa great deal, quite a lot, same, or very little? 9. If you had the chance, wouldyou like to move away from, your neighborhood in Plymouth? A1C "YES", ASK. GREAT DEAL.. . . . l QUITE A L07 . . . . 2 S Ote:E .. .. . .. .. . . . .: . 3: VERY Lf"'TLE . . 4 DON'T 00111/REFUSED. . . . 5 YES .......... l NA. . . 2 DON'T KdCw/PEFUSED .. . . . 3 0. 1.0. Wh©re would you like to rove? IN PLYMi3J i H . . . . . l A 0 T HER SUBURB . . . 2 FURTHER FROM MPLS . . 3 Z OUT OF MINNESOTA. . . . . 4 F DON'T KNOW/REFUSED, . ' . 5 I oT a 1 _, E F ll. If you were moving to another city, what factors would be most important toyouu in selecting your new place of residence? 12. Do you consider property taxes in Plymouth. EXCESSIVELY HIGH. . . . . 1 13 to be excessively high, about average, or AEOUT AVERAGE . . . . . . 2 40 comparatively low? COMPARATIVELYLOW T 3 q DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . 4 13. What do yoo and/or your family like Lg do with your recreation tire? x y r f 14. 6veirall, would you rate park and recreation EXCELLENT . . . . 1 facilities in Plymouth as excellent, good, GOOD. . . . . . . . . 2 only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR . . . .. 3 Pooh. . . . . . . . 4 DON IT KNOW, . . . . . ._ . 5 REFUSED . . . . . . . 6 I would like to read off a few city services, and have you tell rx for each, whether you are generally satisfied or dissatisfied with that service. 15. Park Maintainance 16. Snow Plowing SATISFIED .-. . . . . . . 1 DISSATISFIED. . . . . . . . o 2 BOTH. .. .......3 DON'T KNOW REFUSED. . . . 4 SATISFIED . . . . . . . . . l DISSATISFIED. . . . .. . . 2. BOTH. . . . . . .3 DON T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 4 PLYMOUTH ISSUES STUDY PAGE THREE 17. Police 18. Sewer b Water Proiects 19. Is there pore crime in your ared 4Fan there was one year ago? SATISFIED. . .. 1 DISSATISFIED . . 2 BOTS. . . . 6 .. • 3 DON'TKNOW/REFUSED , . . . 4 SATISFIED. . . . . 1 DISSATISFIED . . 2 BOTH . . . . . .3 GON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . . 4 MORE . . . . . . . . . l LESS..... .......2 tai SAr1E . . 3 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . . 4 20Now much confidence do you have in the A GREAT DEAL , , . I tai police to protect you from violent crime QUITE A BIT. . . . . 2 q a great deal, quite a bit., not very much, NOT VERY MUCH. . . . 3 or none at ala? NONE AT ALL. . . . . 4 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED . 5 21. Now much do you feel you know about the GREAT DEAL . . . . . l work of the Mayor and City Council --a FAIR AMOUNT. . . . . 2 3.1 great deal, a fair amount, or very little? FIERY LITTLE. . . 3 S 2 DOtI'T KNOi1/P,EFUSED-. 4 22., From what you know, do you approve or STRONGLY APPROVE . . 1 13 disapprove of the job the Mayor ar.d City APPROVE. . . . . . . 2 so Council are doing? (U;AiT FOR RESPONSE) DISAPPRCNE . . . . . 3 it And do you feel strongly that way? STRONGLY DISAPPROVE. 4 DONT KNOW/REFUSED , 5 23 25. Offhand, do you recall the name of the . - DAVENPORT NAMED. . . . . 1 wyor of Plymouth?' (IF YES, ASK): What Is OTHER NAMED- ... . . 2 bis name? D011.'T KNOW . .` . .. . 3 24. Ifyou were a member of the Plymouth City Council and were limited so that you could successfully do onnll one thing, that is, make only one change or improve - mento what would it be. 25. Would you favor or oppose an increase in FAVOR'. . 1 ScitypropertytaxesifitwereneededtoOPPOSE . . . . . • 2 maintain city services at their current DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .. 3. levels? 25. Are there any city services, in particular, which you feel could be cut back without a great loss to Plymouth residents? (IF YES, ASK:) Which ane? PLYMOUTH ISSUES STUDY PAGE FOUR S 27. Are there any city services that should not be cut back? ('IF YES, ASK:) Which ones? 1. Some people say that further industrial development in Plymouth is needed to insure an adequate tax base and keep residential property taxes dog A . Otb, rs feel that dev- elopment ev- elopment should be curtai ly.;a to preserve open spaces in the city. v41hich side do you most agree with? 32. The Plymouth Park System is composed .)f trails., larger cammnit r parks, comunity playfields, and seller neighborhood parks.. Gr these four types of facilities, which is ese!cially important to you and/or your am y(READ CHOICES l - 4) 33. Now, could you tellme about how often you and other members of your household have used the park and recreation in Plymouth during the: past year --would you say frequent - 11Y, occasionally, or not at all? f7F7EQ'ENTLY" IN QUESTION 33, ASK: FURTHER DEVELOPMENT . 49 - CURTAIL 9 - CURTAIL . . . 2.1 BOTH. . . . . . 1 N NEITHER . . DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 5 TRAILS. . . . . . . . i LARGER COMMUNITY PAr;a . COMMUNITY PLAYFIELDS. 3 SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS. 4 NONE OF THE ABOVE . . . 5 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . f. FREQUENTLY. . . . . l OCCASIONALLY. . . . . 140T AT ALL . . . . . . a DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. . . 4 34, ilhith age groups in your household PRESCHOOL./ELEMENTARY. 1 use the facilities? (READ AGE CATAGORIES JUNIOR HIGH/SENIOR HIG3 AND CIRCLE NUMBERS OF "YES" RESPONSES) ADULTS/SENIOR CITIZENS. 3 IF "OCCASIONALLY" OR "NOT AT ALL" IN QUESTION 33, ASK; 35. Is there any particular reason why your household does not use the Plymouth park and recreation system more fregoaently? i3 to X q. to 13 35 35 25 F 23. Do you agree or disagree with this state- STRONGLY AGREE. rent: "Plymouth City ^_.overnment wastes too AGREE . . . . . . much of my tax dollar." (WA11" FOR RESPONSE) DISAGREE. . . s 4 And do you feel stron?y tnat way? STRONGLY OISAG^,EE t (4 ice- k DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . 22 29. How much first-hand contact :have you had QUITE A LOT . ., . . . . with the staff of Ply;1auth City government SOME. . . . . . . . . . E y quite a lot, some, or very little? VERY LITTLE . 0 DON'T KNOW/REFUSE +. 4 30. From what you have seen or heard, howl would EXCELLENT . . . you rate the job performance of the, staff G0'10. . , . . . . . . . 2_.. S a of City government --excellent, good, only ONLY FAIR . . . . . , 3.. 3 fair, or poor? POOR. . . . . . 4 DON IT KNOW/REFUSED. . . 4 14 1. Some people say that further industrial development in Plymouth is needed to insure an adequate tax base and keep residential property taxes dog A . Otb, rs feel that dev- elopment ev- elopment should be curtai ly.;a to preserve open spaces in the city. v41hich side do you most agree with? 32. The Plymouth Park System is composed .)f trails., larger cammnit r parks, comunity playfields, and seller neighborhood parks.. Gr these four types of facilities, which is ese!cially important to you and/or your am y(READ CHOICES l - 4) 33. Now, could you tellme about how often you and other members of your household have used the park and recreation in Plymouth during the: past year --would you say frequent - 11Y, occasionally, or not at all? f7F7EQ'ENTLY" IN QUESTION 33, ASK: FURTHER DEVELOPMENT . 49 - CURTAIL 9 - CURTAIL . . . 2.1 BOTH. . . . . . 1 N NEITHER . . DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 5 TRAILS. . . . . . . . i LARGER COMMUNITY PAr;a . COMMUNITY PLAYFIELDS. 3 SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS. 4 NONE OF THE ABOVE . . . 5 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . f. FREQUENTLY. . . . . l OCCASIONALLY. . . . . 140T AT ALL . . . . . . a DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.. . . 4 34, ilhith age groups in your household PRESCHOOL./ELEMENTARY. 1 use the facilities? (READ AGE CATAGORIES JUNIOR HIGH/SENIOR HIG3 AND CIRCLE NUMBERS OF "YES" RESPONSES) ADULTS/SENIOR CITIZENS. 3 IF "OCCASIONALLY" OR "NOT AT ALL" IN QUESTION 33, ASK; 35. Is there any particular reason why your household does not use the Plymouth park and recreation system more fregoaently? i3 to X q. to 13 35 35 25 F PLYMOUTH ISSUES STUDY PAGE FIVE 36, Some people have time to vote in every election while others do not., Did you vote in last .month's Plymouth City election? IF "YES„, ASK: 37. Why did you decide to vote? 1; "N001, ASK: 33. Could ou tell r. a why you not vote? YES. . . . . . . . . 1 3yIG O.. . . 2 Gtr DON' TKNOW/REFUSED . . 3 D t,w, just a few more questions for statistical purposes. . . 39. Do you own or rent your present residence? 40. 'How old are you, please? 01-1N. . . . . ...I RENT . . .. . . 2 REFUSED. . . . . . 3 U 18 - 24. 25-34. 2 35 - 44. . , . . . . 3 45 54, . . . . < 4 55 64. 5 65 AND OVER. . . . . . 6 REFUSED. . . . . 7 41. What is the occupation of the head of this household? 42 ?ia n you tell aye approximately what' is the y level of income for all members of your household, that is, before any taxes? Is the total annual income: READ CHOICES 1 - 7) I Thank you very much for your time. Goodbye. 43. Sex (BY OBSERVATION: DO NOT ASK) BELOW $10,000. . . . . .. 1 2 BETWEEN $10,000 AND $20,000. 2 BETWEEN $20,000 AND $30,000. 3 1 3 BETWEEN $30,000 AND $40,000. 4 BETWEEN $40,000 AND $50,000. 5 t L BETWEE41 $50,000 AND $60,000. 6 OVER $60,000 . . . . . . . . 7 DON'T VJ4OW . . . . . . . . . 8 REFUSED. . . . . . , 9 21 MALE .....:.....1 FEMALE . . . . . . . 2 elephone Number pate Completed Interviewer Zone 11 OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES i6. What do you like most about living in Plymouth: r Gt f4D 00 -Don't knew . . . . . . . . . 8%#W.* wyu` 01 -Nothing . . . ._ . . . . . . . 3 e'*00`4l 02-Quiet/peaceful . . . . . . Q 03 -Location - country 04 -Good for family. . . . 05 -Open spaces - parks. . . . . T 06 -Available housing. . . 07 -Responsive government. 4 08 -Close to downtown.-. . . . . 09 -General positive "good place to live". 6 10 -Schools .. . . . . . . . . 6 50 -other. . . . . . . . . . 2 V. What do you like least about li-ing in Plymouth: 00-Don't know . . . . . . . . .19 01 -Nothing. . . . ._ . . . . 31 ve&j/ 02 -No shops:. . . . . . . 03 -Taxes . . .. 5 10 ... Fjtc:• 1,as' 04 -Travel time -transportation 7 05 -Too much low-cost housing/ too many apartments.. . .. . . 1 06 -School closings. . . . . 1 07 -No tax base - no industry. . 1 08 -Residents homogenenous . . 3 09 -General negative . . . . . . 5' 10 -Too much industry. 5 R. 1i -Poor parks .. . W! . 4R::.:. 12 + 2• T 13 -School s - qua l t ty. 1 14 -Government ". . 3 11. If you were moving to another city, what factors would be most. important to you in selecting your new place of residence?' 00.-Don`t know. . . . , . , , .14% 01 -Nothing special . . . . . 1 02 -Available; housing . . 5 03-locatioTi/proximity. . , . . . .11 04 -Recreation. ., . . . . , . 1 05 -Transportation . ti . , 2' 06 -Open, space/quiet. . . . . ..12 07 -Schools . . . . . . .. . . . . . .15 08 -,Tax base, , . 6 09 -Climate . . . . . . . . . .. .11 10 -Jobs, p . 7} 11 -Ne 1 ghborhood.. .. , .. 8y , 12 -General "quality of life" . . . p 13. What do you: and/or your family like to do with your recreation time? - 00 -Refused . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% 01 -Traver., , . , , * . .. . . . 3 202-1 ocal. trips/use parks . . . . . 03 -Spectator sports, . . . . . . 7 04-Swim-boat-la.ke home . . . . . . . . 7 05-Fish/hunt . . . . . . . . , 10 06 -Hiking . .. . . . . . . . . . 4 07 -Camping . . . . . . . . S 08 -Skiing . . . . . . . . . . 17 -• 09-Read/general relaxation . . . , . . 14 10 -Other participant sports . . . . . . 1:6+. 11 -Golf . . . . . . . . 6 50 -Other . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 024. If you were a member of the Plymouth City Council and were limited so that you could successfully do only one thing, that is, make only one change ro improvement, what wou tt e? OC -Don't know. . . . . . . 36 01 -Nothing . . . 8 02 -More shops. . . 03 -maintain environment, , . 1 5 04 -Cut taxe . . . . . W 05 -No low cost housing . , . 2 06-Keep/improve parks, . . 07 -Upgrade policies. . . .. . 03 -More industry . . 09 -Specific services (streets, a 4 lights, etc.) 8 10 -Improve water . . . . . 0 11 -Improve government. . . 3 12 -Maintain "quality of life". 6 13 -Workhouse .. . . . . . 1 M 26 Are there any city services, in particular, which you feel could be cut back without a great loss of Plymouth residents? 099-D yaon t know. . .. . . . . ,15 199- No cuts... .. . . . . ... . ., . .62 2 . 00 -Yes, but not. sure what, . . . 7 201-Park/Recreation . . . . . . . . 202` -Roads . . . . . . . . . 4 203 -Welfare 4 . . . . . . 1 204-Police/fire. . . . . . . l 205-Water/sewer . . . . . . . . . . 1 206 -City Government . . . . . l 27. Are there any city services, that should not be cut back? 099 -Don't know.. . . . .12 199 -All servicescould be cut . . . .31 ZOO -Yes (some should be exempt unsure which). 5 201-Sewer/water . . . . . . . l 202-Police/fire . . . . . . . . .33 203 -Snow plowing. . . . . . . . g 204 -Schools . . . . . . . 3 205 -Parks . . . . . . . . .. 4 206 -Welfare . . . . . . .. 1, 207 -Roads . . . . . .. . . . . . 3 035. Is there any particular reason why your household does not use the Plymouth park and recreation system more frequently? G -Don't know. . . . . .. . . 4w 1 -No special reason . . . . . . . . .14 2 -Too busy. . . . i . . . . . . .11 3 -No children/adults don't care to use. . .13 4 -Don't know about/like park system .. . . . 5 5 -Children wrong age. . . . . T ys+' 6 -No (tennis, courts, lake, ski trails, etc.) ? 7 -Too far away. . . . . . . . . . . 6 8 -Other . . . . . . . . . 2 9 -Not applicable, . . . .. . .39 37. Why did you decide to vote? 1 -Issues. .. . 30% 2-Duty/vote all elections ... . . .26 3 -No special reason . .. : . . 1 4 -Support (mayor, other candidates) . . . . 1 5 -General interest. . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9 -Not applicable. . . , . . . . .67 38' Could you tell me why you did not vote? 0,-Don t know. . , i . . . r. . . Sia. 1.9No_ reason . . . . . ., . . .. i. . i. .. . . .. 9 2-Out of town . . . 9 3-Didn't know about election (forgo.t)- , .18 4-Didn't know candidate . . . . 3 5-NO contest(s) . . . . . . t 1 2 6-Too busy . i. .. . i. •. . .. i. . .. i. . . . . .. t 0Cw. 8-Other ., .. .. . . . . ., .: », , .. , l . i U: 9-Nut applicable. .. . . . . . :34 41. What is the occupation of the head; of this household? 00-Refused. . . . . . . 01-Professional/Technical . . ., . .26 02-Owner/Manager,, . . . 28 -- 03-Farmer . . . . ._ . . . . . t . . . 1 04-Clerical/Sales _ .. . . . . . . .18 05-Service. . . . . . 4 Ob-Blue collar. . .. . . . . . . . . . .1l 0y7(- yM( R'etirement . . . . . . . .. . 09-Student, . . . . .I Ic • . 0 10-Unemployed . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 0 i. PLYMOUTR PARK SYSTEM PLAN Contents Page 1. Introduction 1 2. Park Standards 2 3, Parks Inventory and Needs 4. Park System Plan 14 5,, Trani System Plan 17 List of Figures 1. Neighborhood and Community Boundaries 2. Neighborhood Park Needs 3. Community Playfiel,d Needs 4. Existing City Parks 6. Park System Plan 6. TrailSystem Plan i d- BRAUER b ASSOCIATES LTD., INC 1 ° 0/8'1 Project #&i--19 n 1. INTRODUCTION From March, 1981 to December, 1981, the Parks & Recreation L. AG hl thAdvisoryCommissionofPlymout (PR ), t e P ymou Parks and Recreation Department, and Brauer & Associates Ltd., Inc. (consultant) created and carried out a process, that. resulted in this document, the Plymouth Park System Plan. Much of the research and analysis required to prow duce the Park System Plan is not included in this docu- ment, but is available at City Hall, Park and Recreation Department for those wishing to review it.. The following groups were also instrumental in the completion of this plan; Plymouth homeowners associations Plymouth City Council adjacent municipalities: Hennepin; County Park Reserve District State of Minnesota The Parks & R:ccreation Advisory Commission adopted the Plymouth Park S1 stem Plan on , 1482. The City Council adopted the Plymouth Park System Plan on , 1981. 1- F 2. PARK STANDARDS The Parti System consists of four building blocks -,- I) neighborhood parks, -2) community playfields, 3) city parks and 4) special use parks--a11connected by a fifth element --trails. The definition, selection and d.istribu- tion of these elements are based upon the recreation heeds, of' the citizens of Plymouth and tempered by the landforms, the land use and the transportation system of the City., The definitions and standards for the building blocks of the system are as follows NEIGHBORHOOD PARR Size and Function. Service area.: 1 neighborhood (approximately 1 2 mile: radius. though not necessarily circular Spatial standard; 2.5 to 3.5 developed acres/1,000 ultimate population V Size: minimum 5 to 7.5' developed acres; maximum 15 to 21 developed acres;, average 6 to 8.5 developed acres Type of use: active and informal Clientele: emphasis on ages 5-,15 and parents (primary); ages 55+ (secondary)! all others (tertiary) Functional characteristics: primarily recreation and ornamen- tation, with some reserve, Context Location: adjacent to elementary school' or located centrally within a defined neighborhood Access: pedestrian and bicycle Ad,lacent land use: residential or school Natural Conditions Resource dependency: resource orientation not required, but. desirable Exposure: totally exposed with views into the park from all directions Topography: flat to rolling (steep slopes, poor soil's, or water should not be considered, as developable acreage) F Vegetation: partially wooded 2 J-7 19 r N aN t 1 N1•lr ter.,. Ac+ _.:+ ' i"w`T J t fir{ y 71; , `1` A!: Y 11 t•p communny bounderV soundwy i...a,z i•.••\•. MUSA Zine 1 T 4N+K 4 F l a Y iyk r F 1 t t N1•aT4 Olt N1•iry Y Nw a.t Eti1 a 1.1K mayy, K. f4.ak t al.. wet: 4.4 Development Timing: begin general site development as early as practical after acquisition Degree of development low -to -moderate Typical facilities/activities: Active (not lighted) informal playfield - trails -sledding play apparatus shuffleboard -free s,<ating sand - horseshoes (lighted) playcourts Passive shaded turf area park benches. picnic tattles Support utilities: non -Potable water, - limited parking only, lighting (for skating) primarily for handi signage capped, plant materials - waste receptacles open air shelter Other Comments may be a part of Larger park not required in indus may be decentralized within trial neighborhuods neighborhood as long as no on.e little or no programming parcel is less than'S acres COMMUNITY PLAYFIELD Size and Function Service area: 1 community (driving neighborhood) approximately 1 to 1.5 mile radius) Spatial standard; 2.5 developed ac./1,000 population (ult.imate) Size: minimum 20 developed acres; maximum 55 developed acres Type of use: intensive, actives formal, programmed Clientele: primary emphasis on ages 8-50 Functional characteristics almost entirely recreation 3 Context Location.: proximity to :secondary schools is desirable central location in community is not necessary on; collector or minor arterial Access: pedestrian/bicycle, automobile, and public transpor- tation AdJacent land use: non-residential is preferred; buffering is desirable if adjacent to residential... Natural Conditions Resource dependency: non -resource oriented Exposure exposed with views into the site from at least; one direction Topography: flat and well -drained conditions are mandatory Vegetation: required only as esthetic consideration or buffering Development Timing: begin deve-lopment when service population reaches 3,000 Degree of development4 high Typical facilities/activities: Active (a11 lighted') baseball soccer - basketball softball - field hockey - tennis football - hockey - pleasure skating Passive spectator seating and seating areas Support' parking -- dependent, on actual - waste receptacles facilities, generally between - some plant: materials 3 to 7 spaces/acre - signage structure with restrooms and - full utilities concessions - some storage facilities Other comments not generally associated with other park types or areas not requiredinindustrial neighborhoods heavily programmed activities. by schools, City A leagues 4- CITE' PARK Size and Function Service aria 4 to 5 parks throughout the City (flexible, but. approximately 2-3 mile radius) Spatial standard. not applicable Size; minimum 20 acres or large enough to encompass special natural features.; no average or maximum site Type of use: extensive, active and passiv- educational, some programming Clientele: all ages Functional kharacteristics: primarily reserve conservation and ornamentation with some recreation and culture Context Location: y where resource exists (particularly water bodies) dispersed throughout city limited roadway frontage is desirable located near collector or minor arterial' Access: pedestrian/bicycle, automobile and public transportation Ad—,unt land use: immaterial C' jural Conditions; Resource dependency: strictly resource oriented; Exposure: immaterial Topography: varied, may be steep and/or include wetlands., floodplains, water bodies Vegetation: varied and of significance and interest De vel: opment Timing: acquisition should occur as soon as resource is iden- tified and funds made available -•development, timing is less. critical Degree of development: low -to -moderate SM i CITE' PARK Size and Function Service aria 4 to 5 parks throughout the City (flexible, but. approximately 2-3 mile radius) Spatial standard. not applicable Size; minimum 20 acres or large enough to encompass special natural features.; no average or maximum site Type of use: extensive, active and passiv- educational, some programming Clientele: all ages Functional kharacteristics: primarily reserve conservation and ornamentation with some recreation and culture Context Location: y where resource exists (particularly water bodies) dispersed throughout city limited roadway frontage is desirable located near collector or minor arterial' Access: pedestrian/bicycle, automobile and public transportation Ad—,unt land use: immaterial C' jural Conditions; Resource dependency: strictly resource oriented; Exposure: immaterial Topography: varied, may be steep and/or include wetlands., floodplains, water bodies Vegetation: varied and of significance and interest De vel: opment Timing: acquisition should occur as soon as resource is iden- tified and funds made available -•development, timing is less. critical Degree of development: low -to -moderate SM Typcial facilities/activities;, Active recreation trails -- swimming beach meadow games area - boating Passive nature trails park benches fishing nature study picnic tables Support park center with restrooms storage building parking -- dependent on actual - path lighting facilities, generally between - signage 3 to 5 spaces/acre waste receptacles full utilities Other comments may incorporate neighborhood park within its boundaries not required in industrial neighborhoods programmed activities provided by City and Schools,. presuming that resource is of sufficient quality to warrant nature -orientation SPECIAL USE PARK Resource dependent preservation open space historical/cultural ponding areas Cit w i ddee arboretum City Center sports center/arena public golf course amphitheater Linkages parkways trails Miniparks vestpock.et parks tottots ornamental parks size and location varies with resource and resource protection needs large scale sites, generally from 30 acres (arboretum) to 110-150 acres (golf course) or more, serving entire City throughout entire City; size less important than width and routing parcels usually of less than 5 acres with very small service areas 6 i All of the above types of special use parks represent legi- timate means of providing recreation and/or preserva.tion open space; however, with the exception of trails,. they do not truly farm the basis for a park system, but rather meet special or miscellaneous needs. In terms of functional characteristics, these park types generally represent, con- servation, though all other aspects are usually represented. With respect to mi,niparks in particular, the City will generally not accept as dedication parcels uf land of les than five acres. The burdens of maintenance of numerous small, developed parcels will exceed the benefits derived from their presence. Such parks are more properly the responsibility of homeowners associations or neighborhood groups since the service area is so small. Other than the general guidelines listed above, no Stan dards exist., per se, for most of these parks. Some, such as the City Center,, a public golf course, an: arboretum,, or a sports arena, are of city-wide significance and thus have an effective standard of one per city. Others, such, as ponding areas and miniparks would have much smaller service a real. TRAILS Refer to Section 5., 7 i K 3. PARKS, INVENTORY AND NEED With park standards established and forming the framework. for the future park syst+m, an inventory of existing parks was made dorina April, 1981 to determine Oe pre- sent state of the system;. The results of the inventory are summarized in the following, tables. The tables not only include inventory results, but alto compare exist- ing parks to the park standards,, thus pointing out: the areas and size of deficiencies. TABU t NEIGH90RH000 PARK NEEDS - ULTIMATE mlhlmum recommended size ti- 5 acres Actual Neigh- Existing Park Needs Ultimate bor-, Ultimate Neighborhood at 2.5-3.5 Deficiency hood Population Parks/Acres Acre/1.L0004 Acres) CONWts 1 1,778 5-6 Nona primarily office industrial; populat)on estimate probably too high 2 0 0 None entirely office -industrial 3, 2,219 5.5-8 5.5-8 could be prselded by Maple Grove 4 945 5 3 could be provided by Maple Grove; seer also ow is for 5 and 6 5 3,423 8.5-12 8.5-12 49an Park (20.7 ac) could be developed as neighborhood park to serve neighbor - 6 7,796 14.5-20 14.3=20 hoods 4,5 and, 6 3,880 9.5-13.5 9.5-13.5 a neighborhood park at Pomerieau Lake could serve neighborhoods 7 and 6 8 1,446 5 S 9 4,098 10-14 10-14 10 1,066 Tmbershores (part)/5 5 None 11 2,021 5-7' 5-7 12 3,297 8-11.5 8-11.5 Zachary 'Lane Elom. could be developed as netghborhood perk, but location Is poor 13 2,732" Schmidt Lake/6.9 7.0-9.5 Nona 14 3,604 9-.12.5 9-12.5 15 1,877 3-6.5 5-6.5 116 5,643 Amhurst/11.0 14-20 3-9 17 1,179 3 5 18 542 0 None prlmarlty Industrial 1.9 1,709 5-6 5 20 2,948 7.5-10,5 7.5--10.5 21' 4,564 Plymouth Creek Parte 11.5--16 111.5-16 could be provided In Plymouth Creek, Park part)/15 22 1,402 5 5 could be provided In Plymouth Creek Park 23 3,438 8.5-12 8.5-12 should be north of creek; population. estlmote. probably too high 24 2,824 Mission Hills/19.3 7-10 None requires additional development 25 5,331 Four Seasons/28.3 13.5-18.5 None my require additional facilities erosion problems exist 26 4,076 Kilmer/1.3 10-14 7-11 23rd and E.M.L. needs development 23r4' d E.M.L./4.9 E. Medlcln Lake part)/1.7 27' 2,265 Hemlock/0.3' 3.5-8' 1.5-4 part of W. Medicine Lake Park (3.5 ac) W. Medicine Lake functions as nelghbonccod perk part)/3.S 28 0 0 None entirely Industrial 29 2,519 Unnamed perk/22 6o5-9 6.5-9 outlots In Mepie Creek addition require considerable development 4 t Ir 10 1 R- N d Yl Legond Coit Boundary t— Y.Y,.., K NsNAborAoo+ Boundary e.. MUSA LMa N ` r%ood W019,"Orhood Park Dofk wncw 1 i. 1 v1. •q Neighborhood Park Needs 1 1 minimum recomiwendod size - 5 acres Comments 22 out of 33.6 acres at the identified ied Parks are credit«% toward neighborhood recreation; the bslance is storm water retention or otherwise unusable though classified as community playfleld, Greenwood Is not developed as such. Can serve neighborhood needs unless and until developed as playfield Gram Oaks adequately serves neighborhood park steeds, Green - tree Best and Meadowood are special use parks the best existing neighborhood park In i'lymouth Lions Park functions as a neighborhood park end would otherwise, be adequate for the papulation,, except for the five acre minimum stipulation. acreage is adequate, but acquisition at Gleanloch would be desirable for fact titles expansion hest Medicine Lake Park and/or Comrunity Club can provide some neighborhood functions entirely industrial small neighborhood, could be served by St. Louts Park LaCompte could function as neighborhood park, but is designed as playfleld. small neighborhood, could be served by Minnetonka also meats needs of n0ghbcrhood 150, althouggh Birchvlew also functions as. community playfield well served good site; needs development small neighborhood, coutd served by Wayzata or by Queensland Park could be served by Birchview and. Circle Park In neighborhood 145 TABLE I (Conttd) IMATENE1GNORiOt#O PARK NEED$ - ULTIMATE Actual Neigh- Existing, Park Needs Ultimate bor- Ultir-at Neighborhood at 2.$-3.5 Deficiency hood Population Parks/Acres Acre/i,000e Acres) 30 1,800 Shiloh/13.3 5-6.5 Norte Ponderosa/4.,9 FBzendln/12.2' Olive Lane Pond/3.2 31 2,557 6.5-9 6.5-9 32 1_,,930 Gcomweed Elem(part)/6 5-6.5 None 33 1,514` Greentree Best/10.9 5-5.5 None Green Oaks/6.0 MeadowoodrFl O. 34 1,893 Imperial Hills/9.1 5-6.5; None 35 1,946 5-7 5-7 36 30255 8-11.5 8-11.5 37 1,320 Lions Park/3.1 5-5 None -2 38 1,150 Gleant6ch/6.9 5-5 None 39 3,191 8-11 8-11 40 80 0 None 41' 834; 5 None -5 42, 773' 5 3 43 891 5 5 44 1,407 Sunset Hilts/20..8 5 None 45 2,965 Circle Park/2.2 7.5-10.5 None Birchview/13.8 46 1,640 5-5.5 5-5.5 47 1,802 Queelsland/7'.1 5-6.5 None 49 436 Ferndale Nos/5.3 5 None 49 338 5 None 50 315 TB$ TT 243 5 37:wu None W76". minimum recomiwendod size - 5 acres Comments 22 out of 33.6 acres at the identifiedied Parks are credit«% toward neighborhood recreation; the bslance is storm water retention or otherwise unusable though classified as community playfleld, Greenwood Is not developed as such. Can serve neighborhood needs unless and until developed as playfield Gram Oaks adequately serves neighborhood park steeds, Green - tree Best and Meadowood are special use parks the best existing neighborhood park In i'lymouth Lions Park functions as a neighborhood park end would otherwise, be adequate for the papulation,, except for the five acre minimum stipulation. acreage is adequate, but acquisition at Gleanloch would be desirable for fact titles expansion hest Medicine Lake Park and/or Comrunity Club can provide some neighborhood functions entirely industrial small neighborhood, could be served by St. Louts Park LaCompte could function as neighborhood park, but is designed as playfleld. small neighborhood, could be served by Minnetonka also meats needs of n0ghbcrhood 150, althouggh Birchvlew also functions as. community playfield well served good site; needs development small neighborhood, coutd served by Wayzata or by Queensland Park could be served by Birchview and. Circle Park In neighborhood 145 r" 7ABLt 2 COMMUNITY PLA,YF I ELD NEEQS ULTIMATE *minimum r»cowmondod size a TO acres: Communi Ultimate Po ulation Existing Co~ l ty P!a flelds Acres Playfsalde Needs at 2.5 ac 1000 Actual Ultimate Deficient {acres Comments e need is m1ninial g van re a- Ively small population of community ,& relative proxi- m,ity to Zachary Playfield. populatlon sstimato is probably too high Bass Lohe, 12,730 32 32 Mideast 12,700 Plymouth Jr. HI h/14 Armstrong Sr. Hlgh/22 32 none no need presumes coordina- tlon with both schools,(36+ acres of plavfields); also spillover to Zachary Elm Creek 20,E Greenwood Elewon./20 53 33.+ Greenwood moods additional development to became play - field; soma acreage is alto- cated to neighbonccod park 6 acres) kreatz Lake 17,130 Oakwood School/18 43 25 Plymouth Creel 26,080 Fernbrook/25 63 none community is well -served on Zachary/35 each side of 1-494 fest Medicine 9,680 LaCompte/3 _ 24 none LaCompte Is combination of Lake Rldgemount/17 playfleid and neighborhood Sunset Hills/16 park; Sunset Hills needs additional development --- 5 acres of Sunset Hills is allocated to nsighbhorhood park Bassett Crook 920 2.3 - 20 axone, cowunity is too small to warrant pl.ayfield Parkors Lake 4,590 Blrchview/13.6 11.5 - 20 none no need presumes use of Wayzata High School/2 Wayzata High School facili- ties and upgrading of Birchview facility as playfleld Industrial 0 0 none TOTAL 106,630 213.8 acres 272.3.:-309 acres. 99.5-1,10 aeras parsons rsssi 0 0 I II IIIIIIIIII i IIInIfIJIII I I IIIIIIIIInIIPIIIIIili iii iR!;IIIIIINIII oi I Wit o iii n i i smmw.r 1 MUSA Lim D c•mowayrrlayftm EM ceytwrr.ra lD ir N y. m 11 Community t Playfield No*ifs L City Park Needs [Ultimate There are presently six sites classified as existinq or potential city parks in Plymouth- Egan Park (20.7 acres); Plymouth Creek Park (approximately 120 dross acres currently, to be expanded to approximately 200 gross acres after deducting acreage for neighborhood parks community 'playfield and non -park uses, roughly 100 to 125 +?cres remain for city park functions); Parkers Lake - ('4 acres currently, to he expanded, tentatively, to approximately 33 acres); West Medicine Lake Park. - (14.3 acres currently, reduced to 11.8 to allow for neighborhood park function to be expanded,, tentatively, to approxi- mately 50 gross acres); East Medicine Lake Park - (10.8 acres currently, reduced to g acres to allow for neighborhood park function); and Timbersh.ores - (34.0; gross acres currently, reduced to approxi„ately'30 to allow for neighborhood park). Although adequate in terms of number of parks and distribu- tion throughout the City, all city parks are deficient in one way or another, to wit Egan Park The park size is just barely adequate (20.8 acres), but its resource base is poor site could be much better used as community playfield (with extensive development) or as a neighborhood park(s) for neighborhoods 4, 5 and/or 6. Plymouth Creek Park The epitome of a city park, (as well as being a special use park) with adequate sir.. and good resource base, the park nonetheless requires extensive development Timbershores A good resource base in terms of conservation or nature interpretation, however, the park needs additional deve- lopment and would greatly benefit from acquisition of additional high ground. Parkers Lake Far too small in its present state to function as a city park_. Considerable acquisition and development is required', presumably in conjunction with the ultimate disposition of the Minneapolis Workhouse property. 11- A r j L r e '{{ I M f Csy M Ighb-cwh"d sN-«r A ' " _ '' ` O. Q 8'.. _.. _ • IIID' 7 T .._ .,—,.— .. ... `' "''r ' yci.u...y,-+•..r: MUSA Lin* M EXWOnq City Pwko ri rl r ' t _ ' Vii` - t_ 't.L '-- A . I _+t `'^ '` " - ,-. 1 --per, , , Y .. M J.i ; 1 `tI J •. a. .. 3 - __•.— . y w R , ,• . j . 1 / City Parks Y Iii ,}, f W , '' I ,_, t_ J 12 ILL v. ..r t. y K ``'. ,' { lye- i %• \ V{'' ; . ` _ ILI 13 fest Medicine Lake Park This park could be classified as either a city park (if expanded) or special use park. Size is presently inade- quate for city park. East Medicine Lake Park This park may be more properly designated as a special use park (beach) and a neighborhood park.. Size is inadequate, context is inappropriate to a city park, and additional acquisition will be difficult, if not impossible. Special Use Park Needs Standards simply do not exist for special use parks as a group, hence it is impossible to quantify needs or deficien- cies. The following table lists special use parks in the City, their acreages and appropriate comments. Special Use Park Acres Comments Plymouth Creek 140 plans indicate neighborhood Park park, community playfield, and city park functions, as well as features such as nature area, gardens, amphitheater and pool Ponderosa Park 4.9 -ponding area, needs trail Greentree West 10..8 -ponding area with trail Pieadowwood 10 -steep and wet, serves as pond- ind area, needs trail Medicine Lake 7.5 -can and occasionally does Community Club function as neighborhood park and community playfield; spe- cial use by virtue of ownership Mission Hills 19.3 portions of Mission Hills are part) merely unimproved linear parks and ponding areas 34th & East 0.9 -small link in eventual East Medicine take Medicine Lake trail fasi '.Iedicine Lake 10.8 -special use park by virtue of Park (part) beach West Medicine Lake 14.3 -special use park by virtue of Park (part) beach 12- West Medicine Lake Park This park Could be classified as either a city park (if expanded) or special use park. Size is presently inade- quate for city park East Medicine Lake Park - This park may be more properly designated as a special use park (beac.h) and a neighborhood park. Size is inadequate, context is inappropriate to a city park, and additional acquisition wi-ll be difficult,, if not impossible. Special Use Park Needs Standards simply do not exist for special use parks as a group, hence it is impossible to quantify needs or deficien- cies. The following table lists special use parks in the City, their acreages and appropriate comments. Sp-ecial Use Park Acres Comments Plymouth Creek 140 -plans indicate neighborhood Park park, community playfield, and city park functions, as well as features such as nature area, gardens, amphitheater and pool Ponderosa Park 4.9 ponding area, needs trail Greentree West 10.8 -ponding area with trail Meadowwood 10 steep and wet, serves as pond- ing area, needs trail Medicine Lake 7.5 ---an and occasionally does Community Club function as neighborhood park and community playfield; spe- cial use by virtue of ownership Mission Hills 19.3 portions of Mission Hills are part) merely unimproved linear parks and ponding areas 34th & East 0.9 small link in eventual East Medicine Lake Medicine Lake trail East Medicine Lake 10.8-speciai use park by virtue of Park (part) beach West Medicine Lake 14.3 -special use park by virtue of Park (part) beach 12 13 Special Use (Cont'd') Park Acres Comments Four Seasons (pa.rt) 28.3 portions are merely unimproved linear parks Parkers Lake Park 4.0 currently special use, to be developed as city park Qakview Pond 1.6 ponding area and ornamental. Beacon heights, 5.5 ponding area, unattractive and deteriorating Oeerwood & Balsam 2.0 lowland, little or no usefulness Birch Park 0.2' ornamental, ponding area; Birch Briar 2.4 low„ wet and steep; ponding area t Fountain Lane 1.1 very small lowland Medicine Lake 340 regional Regional Park Eagle Lake Reg. park 80 regional Luce Line Trail 1.3 mile's DNR trail approx. ) HCPRD Trail 3.0 miles, partially acquired approx•) Hollydaie Golf 140 private golf course Course Elm Creek Golf 55 private golf course Course Hampton Hills 150 private golf course Many of the above parks arm not integral elements in the municipal park system, particularly the smaller parcels. The Citi should not continue to accept small, unusable parcels under the guise of nark dedication. A ponding area, in and of itself, does not constitute a park. 13 4. PARK SYSTEM PLAN The Park System Plan illustrated in Figure 5 is designed to meet the deficiencies identified in Section 3 All told, the Plan proposes the acquisition and development of 336 additional acres of various types of parklandw a,s specified below. TABLE 3 Existing Additional Total Acres Proposed Acres Acres Neighborhood Parks ?43 35.5 (Priority 1) 424' 113 (Priority 2) 32 (Priority 3); Community Playfields 214 68 282 City Parks 179 179..5 358.5 Special Use 118 2 120___ TOTAL KUNICIPAL PARKS 754 430 1,155, Regional Parks 420 420 Golf Courses 345 345 TOTAL 1,519 430 1,950 In terms of timing,, it should be noted that all park standards, needs and deficiencies are premised upon the ultimate projected population of Plymouth; ---that of approximately 110,000 persons to be reached during the 21st century. As a result, only about 50% of the addi- tional proposed parkland need be acquired and developed prior to 1990. For instance, the above table indicates the need for 68 acres of additional community playfields but, given the present number, of playfields throughout the City and the projected rate of population growth, it is unlit''lly that Plymouth will need to develop another z playfie d prior to 1990. At that time, Kreatz Lake and Elm Creek communities may need ea,panded playfield facili- ties and Bass Lake community will need a piayfield faci- lity. aci- lity. (Refer also to p. 4; Community Pl ayfiei d Standards and p.. 10, Community Playfieid Needs Ultimate.) With respect to additional neighborhood, parks:, the neigh- borhoods which lack sufficient neighborhood park facili- ties have been classified, in descendinq ordev of priority, as being of one of three types., 1) developed, 2) developing (pre --1990),, and 3) develo„ing (poste -1990). The neighborhoods and acreages in each priority classifi- cation are as follows: 1.4 R p'ar`.ak: TABLE 4 Prioritj I developed Neighborhoods Neighborhood Deficiency a 26 TABLE 4 Prioritj I developed Neighborhoods Neighborhood Deficiency Proposed. Acquisition 26 7-11 ac. 7.5 ac. V 1,5-4 ac. 5 ac. 35 5-1 ac. none 39 8-11 ac 5 ac. 42 5 ac none 43 5 At. 12 ac. 46 5-5.5 ac. 6 ac. Subtotal - TOTAL 199-267.5 Acres 180.5 Acres Priority 1 36.5.,4.9.5 Acres, 35,5 Acres Priority 11 - Developing Neighborhoods (pre,1990 Neighborhood Deficiency Proposed Acquisition 9 10-14 ac. 10 ac. 11 5-7 ac. 6 ac. 12 8-11..5 ac. 10 ac. 14 9-,12.5 ac., 18 ac. 15 5-6.5 ac. 5 ac. 16 14-20 ac. 9 ac:. (additional) 17' 5; ac. 5 at, 20 7.5-10.5 ac. 5 ac. z1 11.5.16 ac. 10 (in. Plymouth Creek Park) 22 5 at, none V 8.5-(1y7 ac. 9 ac. 29 6.5-9 ac 11 ac. 31 6.5-9 ac. 8 ac. 36: 8•-11.5 acr 6 a:c. Subtotal - Priority 11 109.5-149.5 Acres 113 Acres Priority III Developing Neighborhoods post --1990 Neighborhood Deficiency Proposed Acquisition 3 5.5-8 ac. none 4 5 ac, none 5 8.5-12 ac. 14 ac. 6 14,5-20 ac. none 7' 9.5-13.5 ac.. 10 ac. 8 5 ac, none 19 5-6 ac. 8 ac. Subtotal - Priority 111 53-69.5 Acres 32 Acres TOTAL 199-267.5 Acres 180.5 Acres 15- As indicated by V -14e above table, there are discrepancies. between 1) the deficiencies resulting from the neighbor- hood park standards and ?) the actual proposed acquisi- tion.. the specific reasons for the discrepancies are many but, in general, the discrepancies. arise: from the inherent conflict of the ideal --as represented by the standards ---with the: actual --as represented by the pro- posed acquA sition depicted; in the plan. In those cases where the proposed acquisition exceeds the deficiency, it is because the deficiency is stated in terms of develop- able acres and the acquisition in terms, of total acres. In those rases where the deficiency exceeds the proposed 4cquis tion, the explanation varies, but most commonly it f is because of one or more of the following reasons; sufficient developable land not available (e.g., neighborhoods 35, 39, 42 small neighborhood (e.g., 31 4) neighborhood adjoins park in another municipality e.g.., 3, 42) neighborhood to be served by larger park in adjoin- ing neighborhood (e.g., 21, 22, 3) existing park reclassified to neighborhood park, hence no need for additional acquisition (e.g.$ 6) Of the fiver city parks indicated on the Park System Plan, two have been virtually all acquired, but not developed Timbershores,, Plymouth Creek); two have been partially aacquired, but not developed (West Medicine lake, Parkers Lake), and one has not been acquired (Pomerleau Lake). Additional Cite park acquisition needs are approximately 85 acres at four sites. As noted in Table 3, additional special use parks amount to; only about two ~cies. This acquisition is to take place only at the Kreatz Lake site in order to develop an ornamental park which can supplement the OaXwood elemen- tary school and playfield. 16 H 1 TRAIL SYSTEM PLAN A natural outgrowth of the Park System Plan and the Land Use guide Plan, the Trail System Plan is desAgned to link residential areas with parks, neighborhood commercial centers and schools. As illustrated in Figure 7, three primary types of trails are intended to serve as many as five different uses--hiking/pedestrian, bicycling, cross country skiing,, horseback riding and snowmobilingo The three primary trail types proposed are described as follows TABLE $ Cl ass 1 Surface;. asphal t in most cases.) Surface width' Recommended Lorridor width:; Loeationt Uses: mire 30 separated from roadway with traffic in excess of x,000 ADT) in parks along natural/ m a n,m a d:e: corridors hiking bikin Jogging skiing horseback riding where designated) Class 2 Class 3 asphalt asphalt 61 (each not side of designated roadway) local streets within within existing existing R -O -W R -a -W roadway shared road - shoulders, way surface adjacent to local streets roadways only; less with than 1,000 ADT) traffic from 1,000 to 5,000 ADTe biking hiking logging biking hiking jogging As a rule, snowmobiles and horses will not be allbwed on the City trails unless so designated; 'however, the regional trail running north from Medicine Lake Regio6al Park will accommodate snowmobiles. And horses. Aside from the, regional trail, snowmobile use will be limited to the Righway 55 R -O -W and adjacent to the wes.t. R44 of 1-494, from Highway 55 north to 48th Aveov#, at which point the trail ties into the regional system,. Horseback riding willbeencouraged only ondesignated trails in the northern and, western portions of the City. Cross country 'skiinq will be allowed on all c ty trails, but only designated Class I trails will be specifically groomed for skiinq.. Sections of typical trail classes and corridors are illustrated below. - Class I Cl ass Cl ass 3 When passing through residential areas, the City will strive to acquire title to, a, 30 -foot R -O -W for Class I trails, allowing sufficient width for necessary huffer- ing (approximately 11 feet on each side). In non- residential areas, the City will seek to acquire a 30 -foot trail easement for Class I trails.